Project

General

Profile

Bug #9657

Date FILL-IN with no separator format: incorrect display value for unknown date value

Added by Vladimir Tsichevski over 1 year ago. Updated 5 months ago.

Status:
Internal Test
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Vladimir Tsichevski
Target version:
-
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

100%

billable:
No
vendor_id:
GCD
case_num:
version_reported:
15711
version_resolved:
reviewer:
Eugenie Lyzenko
production:
No
env_name:
topics:

Related issues

Related to User Interface - Bug #7515: FILL-IN: editing dates issues WIP

History

#1 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski over 1 year ago

  • reviewer Eugenie Lyzenko added

For a FILL-IN created for a date variable with format having no separators (the 999999 and 99999999 formats), setting the screen value to an empty string or pressing ? in the FILL-IN must result in an empty string displayed value.

In FWD, this results in the display value filled with spaces: you can navigate to any position with keyboard or mouse and insert characters to positions other than 0.

This leads to the more serious problem: you cannot insert "short" dates like 012 for the 999999 format: FWD appends an extra space to the value, and this makes the value invalid.

#2 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from New to WIP
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100

Fixed in 9657a rev. 15712. Has to be tested with ChUI.

#3 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski over 1 year ago

  • Status changed from WIP to Review

#4 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski over 1 year ago

  • Related to Bug #7515: FILL-IN: editing dates issues added

#5 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski over 1 year ago

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Fixed in 9657a rev. 15712. Has to be tested with ChUI.

I'm having difficulties running our large ChUI testing suite. Could someone please run the ChUI tests for this branch?

#6 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski about 1 year ago

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Fixed in 9657a rev. 15712. Has to be tested with ChUI.

I'm having difficulties running our large ChUI testing suite. Could someone please run the ChUI tests for this branch?

Hynek, can you help with this, please.

#7 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski about 1 year ago

I've rebased the 9657a to the latest trunk. The rev. is now 16059.

#8 Updated by Hynek Cihlar about 1 year ago

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Fixed in 9657a rev. 15712. Has to be tested with ChUI.

I'm having difficulties running our large ChUI testing suite. Could someone please run the ChUI tests for this branch?

Hynek, can you help with this, please.

Running.

#9 Updated by Hynek Cihlar about 1 year ago

ChUI regression tests passed.

#10 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski 12 months ago

Eugenie, please, review.

#11 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski 7 months ago

  • Assignee set to Vladimir Tsichevski

Eugenie, please, review.

#12 Updated by Eugenie Lyzenko 7 months ago

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Eugenie, please, review.

I have no objections. While it is OK with ChUI testing.

Can you please rebase with recent trunk? I just want to be sure I do not miss any changes from this branch.

#13 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski 7 months ago

Eugenie Lyzenko wrote:

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Eugenie, please, review.

I have no objections. While it is OK with ChUI testing.

Can you please rebase with recent trunk? I just want to be sure I do not miss any changes from this branch.

Rebased to trunk rev. 16329.

#14 Updated by Eugenie Lyzenko 7 months ago

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Eugenie Lyzenko wrote:

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Eugenie, please, review.

I have no objections. While it is OK with ChUI testing.

Can you please rebase with recent trunk? I just want to be sure I do not miss any changes from this branch.

Rebased to trunk rev. 16329.

You mean to trunk rev. 16328? Just because trunk and 9657a can not have the same version number.

#15 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski 7 months ago

Eugenie Lyzenko wrote:

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Eugenie Lyzenko wrote:

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Eugenie, please, review.

I have no objections. While it is OK with ChUI testing.

Can you please rebase with recent trunk? I just want to be sure I do not miss any changes from this branch.

Rebased to trunk rev. 16329.

You mean to trunk rev. 16328? Just because trunk and 9657a can not have the same version number.

You are right. Apologies for the confusion.

#16 Updated by Hynek Cihlar 6 months ago

  • Status changed from Review to Internal Test

Vladimir, please go ahead with regression testing. I will run ChUI regression tests.

#17 Updated by Hynek Cihlar 6 months ago

Vladimir, please make sure to check in any test cases that are still unchecked.

#19 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski 6 months ago

Same issue later reported by customer (#9928) and fixed in trunk r16267 (different fix).
Original problem no longer reproducible in rebased 9657a or current trunk.

#20 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski 6 months ago

Hynek Cihlar wrote:

Vladimir, please make sure to check in any test cases that are still unchecked.

Any example with a date FILL-IN with a no-separator format will do for testing.
Probably, it is possible to create an automatic test using APPLY.

#21 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski 6 months ago

The fix in trunk revision 16267 (#9928) addressed some consequences of the original problem but did not fully resolve the root cause.

SESSION:SET-NUMERIC-FORMAT(",",".").
SESSION:DATE-FORMAT = "mdy".
DEFINE VARIABLE d AS DATE NO-UNDO.
DEFINE FRAME f d WITH SIZE 80 BY 17 SIDE-LABELS.
ENABLE ALL WITH FRAME f.
d:FORMAT="999999".
WAIT-FOR CLOSE OF CURRENT-WINDOW.
  1. Run in GUI mode.
  2. Enter some valid character, e.g. 1
  3. Move caret right with the Right key
  • OE or branch 9657a: you cannot move caret right past 1
  • FWD trunk: you can move caret within 4 positions (3 positions right from the 1 character)

Probably, after the 9657a fix is applied, the 9928a fix can be removed?

#22 Updated by Hynek Cihlar 5 months ago

9657a passed ChUI regression tests.

#23 Updated by Hynek Cihlar 5 months ago

Vladimir, how are GUI regression tests doing?

#24 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski 5 months ago

Hynek Cihlar wrote:

Vladimir, how are GUI regression tests doing?

I rebased and tested with the example in #9657-21 and automatic tests with 7019-e.p. No regression detected.

#25 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski 5 months ago

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Hynek Cihlar wrote:

Vladimir, how are GUI regression tests doing?

I rebased and tested with the example in #9657-21 and automatic tests with 7019-e.p. No regression detected.

I cannot run our big customer application until a compatible binary package is available for trunk r16415.

#26 Updated by Vladimir Tsichevski 5 months ago

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:

Hynek Cihlar wrote:

Vladimir, how are GUI regression tests doing?

I rebased and tested with the example in #9657-21 and automatic tests with 7019-e.p. No regression detected.

I cannot run our big customer application until a compatible binary package is available for trunk r16415.

I upgraded the application and tested. No regression found.

Also available in: Atom PDF